An attorney general we can't trust

An editorial  —  10/01/2008 5:26 am

Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen is challenging Wisconsin's electoral system on the eve of the 2008 presidential election not as a lawyer for the people of this state but as a lawyer for outside interests. His effort to create confusion about who can vote and to open the way for challenges to the voting rights of qualified electors is not based on Wisconsin law but on federal law.

The attorney general is seeking to force the state Government Accountability Board to comply with federal standards that are in conflict with Wisconsin's tradition of encouraging high levels of voter participation in order to produce election results that are most reflective of the sentiments of all Wisconsinites.

Many states have histories of limiting voter participation. In some cases, those histories are linked to legacies of slavery and segregation. In other states, those histories extend from political machines that seek to game the results of elections for partisan purposes.

Wisconsin has different values. This is a state that rejected slavery and segregation at its founding, and that has traditionally eschewed machine politics.

Wisconsin's attorney general should defend Wisconsin values and Wisconsin interests.

Unfortunately, Van Hollen is not doing that. He is intervening in the state's electoral processes as a lawyer for the federal government -- or, to be precise, for that sector of the federal government, located in the Bush administration's Justice Department, that has repeatedly been accused of trying for partisan purposes to limit participation in the electoral process by people of color, the young, the elderly and the disadvantaged.

The fact that Van Hollen is intervening on behalf of interests outside Wisconsin in order to create conflicts within the state's electoral system -- which historically has produced some of the highest turnouts in the country -- is unsettling.

It is more unsettling that Van Hollen's intervention came after he attended the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, where former White House political czar Karl Rove met with the state's delegation to urge ramped up action to win the closely contested state for Republican nominees John McCain and Sarah Palin.

It is even more unsettling that Van Hollen's office has been so slow to reveal that he and members of his staff had been in contact with the chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin and other political operatives who wanted the attorney general to use his office to advance their political agenda going into the Nov. 4 election.

But most unsettling of all is the fact that, while he has been intervening on behalf of outside interests, Van Hollen has attempted to block Wisconsin groups from weighing in on the fundamental democratic and due process issues raised by his lawsuit.

Van Hollen actively opposed motions to intervene in his suit, J.B. Van Hollen v. Government Accountability Board, et al., both by groups that agree with his initiative, such as the Republican Party of Wisconsin, and by groups that disagree with him, such as the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, Madison Teachers Inc., American Federation of Teachers-Wisconsin and Madison Firefighters Local 311.

"The legitimate interests of the parties and the public are adequately represented in this case," says the attorney general. "I will be opposing all motions to intervene. Time is of the essence. I am concerned that if motions to intervene are granted it will only serve to slow down the process."

Translation: Just trust Van Hollen.

Embarrassingly, for Van Hollen and for Wisconsin, reasonable citizens can no longer trust their attorney general.

After attending his party's national convention and allowing his aides to meet with Republican operatives, Van Hollen has chosen to make himself not merely a vehicle for advancing their partisan agenda but also a representative of the federal government in a challenge to Wisconsin's Government Accountability Board.

Yet an attorney general who has abandoned his oath to serve Wisconsin would deny Wisconsinites -- those who agree with him and those who do not -- a chance to stand up for what they believe to be the best interests of the state.

Van Hollen's approach is as absurd as it is shocking.

Dane County Judge Maryann Sumi agreed. She rejected Van Hollen's heavy-handed move.

Unfortunately, Sumi allowed Van Hollen to continue this charade for another month -- setting an Oct. 23 hearing on the case. She should have just laughed Van Hollen out of court.

An editorial  —  10/01/2008 5:26 am